Just Posted: Our Nikon Coolpix A review

Just posted: Our review of the Nikon Coolpix A. With a 28mm-equivalent wideangle lens, and the same 16MP DX format sensor as used by the D7000 SLR, the Coolpix A is designed as a serious compact camera capable of professional-quality results. But it's up against stiff competition, in the shape of the similarly-specified but cheaper Ricoh GR that was announced a month later. In our 16-page comparative review, we take a detailed at how the Coolpix A measures up to the challenge to the challenge posed by its close rival. Our review of the Ricoh GR should follow in the next couple of weeks.

Comments

Lots of reviews comparing the Nikon A to the Ricoh GR. And over all the scores seem fairly even.

Years ago I bought a Ricoh GX200 which I absolutely hated. So much so that I only ever used it a couple of times. Preferring to lug around the DSLR and lenses it was meant to allow me to leave at home. My main problems with it were appalling noise even at low ISO, terrible build quality and what I considered poor handling in manual mode. I'm aware that the noise issue is no longer a problem but the GR is still an absolute no no for me.

Does that mean I'm likely to prefer the Nikon? Or should I steer clear of this type of camera altogether?

After all this, the Sony RX-100 still scores higher! Whilst both got a silver award, the Sony got a 78 and the Nikon a 75. Interesting. From the review I would guess the GR is going to score even lower.

I really love GR design and image samples, but if score will fall below 75, I will never buy this piece of junk because my friends will make fun of me. (jk)Actually three of my all time favorite camera (E1, Digilux2 and GRD) did score very low here with bad reviews. Still have D2 and even use it sometimes.

Very quick review for the very specialized (read - low volume) camera, while other more mainstream cameras wait for year or so.Nikon A vs Fuji X100s vs Ricoh GR comparison review would be more interesting.

Really, designed from ground up, as opposed to borrowed from SLR? Aren't most digicams, large or small design their lenses from ground up to fit that body. I don't disagree that image quality is great, especially on GR (A is a bit soft at the edge)

If you want to talk milestones, I'd say film GR was a milestone. A tinny FF camera with super sharp 28mm lens, so good even Leica adopted it. Another is E1 Olympus, designed from ground up, sensor and lenses, electronic dust removal and letter on Live view on newer models. Which altimetely led to the biggers milestone in recent history - Panasonic G1 and Olympus EP1, so called Mirrorless system. New GR and A and X are all great camera, but it's not a milestone in camera design, it's more of an evolution due to the sensor technology improving. If sensors today were as absorbent as film imultion, we would have FF GR and X etc. So really bottleneck today is not camera design or lenses its in sensors. RX1 milestone due to its unusual design

weren't for the usability issues of the Sigma DP, you would have said that in 2008. I love my DP2 for travel photography though only works well in base ISO. Anyway, now that these two cameras got rid of the AA filter and uses a prime lens, the IQ is close to Foveon cameras without the Sigma/Foveon issues.

The Sony RX100 blows this Nikon away. The Sony has a zoom, the wide end is faster, the DOF is pretty much the same for both cameras which negates the Nikon's larger sensor. For normal use, Sony's IQ matches the Nikon's except upwards of ISO1600. On top of that the Sony is more pocketable. What's the rationale for the Nikon?

a.the dof actually looks pretty different in practice it crosses a threshold of actually being a noticeable

b. the zoom isnt that useful. Both these camera are really only for photographing things you can get close too. you won't be shooting the great horned owl with either. the ricoh and nikon lens have nearly no distortion and are effective at photographing most anything

c. The sensor and lens is no match for the GR/A. These images I shot with my GR yesterday are a good example http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51604079 . i taxed pretty heave on dynamic range and iso at the same time. the RX100 is just not up to this.

d. the nikon is a little big the GR is very comfortable in my pocket.

e. the sony like all sony camera be they nex/slt whatever is sort of a nerdy joyless thing to use. people will say thios doesnt matter until they try one and it beeps to let them know it took a picture. or they are having trouble composing there image through the 100 icons on the sony's screen

LOLyou said that color is important to you, so why don't you look at the sample yourself and tell us which camera colors you like better. Or you will buy the camera that other people like? (Nikons tend to produce yellowish colors, looks like GR may not be as pleasing, but you can correct it, or Ricoh will, they support well)

Just love how we all sometimes get caught waiting for DPR score, OMG 79% is better than 78%, but still not as good as that one with 82% score which will automatically take Pulitzer prize pictures. Lets wait for the next model year.

Most cameras today are more than capable to make most people happy. Creating culture of obsessive compulsive camera freaks who measure their camera output, as if it was a pacemaker and human life would depend on it, is what most review sites want. That's why DPR came back with score system, so fanboys and just people with competitive nature could keep a d*ck measuring contest going. (After all that's what generates traffic here)

"Most cameras today are more than capable to make most people happy"If you are talking about detail I agree but it is not that simple. I will give you an example I have an E-PL1 an NEX-5N. I don't shoot RAW so only use out of camera jpeg

The white balance of E-PL1 is very unreliable in any artificial lighting and someimes even daylight, produce odd color and it is a pain to correct them with jpeg (almost impossible to me)I also much prefer the color of NEX there is no way you can change the color of E-PL1 jpeg to NEX color

So not as simple as you said. The white balance and color of a camera is different for different cameras so not all cameras today are OK to everyone

Of course one can shoot RAW but that is an added cost and added trouble that not all (including me) will do. Even in RAW I bet different camera has different color and also white balance is determine by camera settings if done in batch mode

Yes they are using the same scene for comparison of A and GR. Colors are mostly a preference, and varies from person to person. I for example don't like NEX colors that much and like Olympus colors better (not sure about EPL1) but do like OMD and did like E1, E3, E420 etc when I owned them. Another thing about NEX and m4/3 color depends on lenses mounted, I mostly use MF lenses from the 1930-70 and my output changes accordingly. I guess I never looked at color output as a big problem, unless you shoot movies (especially on film). But if colors are so important to you, I guess wait for DPR to tell you what is better.

Looks like A and GR are close enough when it comes to image quality.If you still not sure about it, you probably be better off with Nikon A.

You know you need GR if:1. you look at it and you know you want this feel, fit, function;2. you want no lag, easy zone MF, stealthy street camera, easy to shoot from the hip, no-slip one-handed no-look shooting.

GR is not for you if:1. you worry about menu structure;2. you worry about color and pixel peepin;3. you need DPR score in order to decide what camera you need;4. you look at GR and A and not sure which one you like better;5. you want to use Auto everything;6. you want to shoot sports or want to capture the craters on moon;7. you want one camera only and you want it to do everything and be better in every regards that any other camera on the market.

GR is perfect Street camera supplement for your Interchangeable Lens System (SLR or NEX, or m4/3, etc). Something you can pull out from your pocket and start shooting in the crowded urban streets, while remaining invisible. Not saying you can't do it with SLR, just saying its so much more robust and stealthy (250g you can carry it all day long in your wrist ready to shoot, with manual setup, with LCD off, ready to shoot at your finger tip).

Of course you can use it for many other scenarios, I did actually use GRD as my only camera for about a year, and truly enjoyed it.

I agree with your conclusions but I still find the review kind of odd. At this stage it seems unlikely that you will review the GR because it was covered here. however it is the camera you seem to be reccomending. would this not have been a great time to do one of your comparison reviews? It just seems odd we have so much more data about the camera you ultimately did'nt like as well and only a modest amount about the one you did. If anything why not review the GR and make comparisons to the Coolpix. I just dont see the logic to this format

Yes and no - in general the Nikon's colour and WB are a touch better (I think it has the edge if you're shooting JPEG, IQ-wise), but I've been surprised at how many images I've got with slightly off WB on the Nikon. It's never terrible and it's not what I'd consider a problem, but it's not quite as consistent as we've come to expect from Nikon's DSLRs.

Some below were getting on my case for daring to even attempt to understand the reviewer's justifications for bold claims like "the GR is a bit better in every way". Apparently we are supposed to just blindly accept every word written in these reviews like wide eyed sheeple consumers.

The thing is, not one person has been able to explain to me why the Coolpix A Sample Gallery looks so dramatically better than the Ricoh GR Sample Galllery.

I've pre-ordered the Ricoh GR to upgrade my GRD III, but frankly I'd rather have the Coolpix A IQ in the Ricoh GR body.

* Cue the "Markus is a Nikon fanboy jerk" comments from people who seem to spend more time attacking me than they do adding photos to their galleries, entering DPR challenges, or trying to contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way.

You just don't get it, so let me spell it out. DPR think the GR is better, in the same way that you think the A is better. If we or DPR try to convince you that the GR is better you will come back with reasons why the A is better. The same applies in reverse. Just because YOU like the A better, doesn't mean you can convince others that this is true. If you don't like DPRs findings, go find a website you do agree with. Seeings how Nikon must always be best according to you, perhaps a more Nikon biased forum might suit you better?

There are a million possible reasons why the images in the A gallery are more pleasing to YOU than those in the GR. this doesn't make it the case for everyone and very very few of those reasons would actually have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the differences between the two cameras.

Isn't it interesting that people target you specifically and no-one else? I think that says a lot more about YOUR attitudes on these posts than anyone else's.

Further to this, Richard has spoken about the images in the galleries. There can be clearer answer than that. What you perceive to be 'nicer' or 'better' is completely subjective.

In further addition to this, there is FAR more to photography than numbers and sheer IQ output. Some of us like the process and the way the tools that we use work within that process. I would go so far as to say the IQ on most 'enthusiast' cameras nowadays is more than 'good' and we no longer need to worry about insignificant details - so the actual device itself and how it makes us feel becomes far more important.

If I hadn't owned a bunch of Ricoh cameras, I'd say it was just rooting for the underdog. But they really do make great little cameras these days and it's hard to ignore a $200 difference. What's easy to ignore, IMHO, is DxO numbers, Ken Rockwell's opinions (stated as facts, of course), and so on.

The funny thing is, I do understand why somebody would buy the Nikon finder. We tend to think of these cameras in terms of the results but they are also aimed at the "prestige" consumer who might pay extra for a vintage-looking finder that says Nikon.

@InTheMist - no offence taken - both galleries were by me (though some of the light I had when shooting the Nikon was lovely).

I would never expect everyone to agree with every word I say. It's frustrating to be told you're wrong by people who haven't actually read all of the review but, if someone's read the review, looked at the evidence I based my conclusion on and found it helped them draw their own (different) conclusion, then I've done my job.

@marike6 - I hope you enjoy whichever of these models you end up with.

I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. Just asking a simple question: if the GR is a better camera, why do the Coolpix A images look better? Why so many blown highlights in the GR gallery? Why are exposures so dark? Why are colors so muted? These are fair questions.

Anyway, since I've ordered the GR, I'm trying to figure out why images I've downloaded tend to look a bit flatter, with more muted colors. I'm hoping Ricoh didn't just put the GXR sensor in the GR, but I don't think that's the case. Thanks.

Anyone trying to convince others which is better has to be based on factsattacking each other is uselessshow evidence and example why one is better than the other than everyone will benefit

Under "Real-world comparisons" I did find Nikon A better in color and/or white balance than GR in the 3 samples available but1. color is subjective and that is just me2. it may be possible to adjust GR in RAW to match Coolpix A but for out of camera jpeg (I assume those samples are), Coolpix A is better in my eyes

"Why are exposures so dark?"Different metering. In the GR image you linked the EXIF says:"Exposure Bias: -1.00 EV"

It's telling that you're so focused on JPGs this time and ask questions that have such obvious answers. What I'd like to know is why you chose GR over the Nikon? It seems you'd be more content with the JPGs you'd shoot with the Nikon.

Firstly, the sensors do seem to be different, at least if you go by Pentax / Ricoh's own admission that the GR does not use the Sony Exmor found in the K5 / D7000.

JPEGs are all that's available as the two galleries don't have any ACR converted from RAW JPEGs (I shoot RAW 99% of the time).

It was odd that even cases of clear advantages in favor of the Coolpix A, i.e., it's better high ISO performance clearly visible in the RAW Comparison tool, or the Low-Light Comparison image, the existence of a dedicated manual focus ring barely mentioned, 14-bit RAW, the reviewer seemed to downplay such advantages. Don't know why.

I've ordered the GR because it's less expensive, and because I love my GRD III for it's deep grip, menu, collapsible lens. But, D7000-like IQ with no-AA filter that you get with the A is appealing.

Just wondered why in an A review, credit was doled out so begrudgingly considering the A seemed to produce more pleasing images for Richard.

This is evidently an excellent camera from the standpoint of image quality. The problem for me is absence of an optical or electronic viewfinder. Out-of-doors your are stuck with the point-and-pray method of composition/framing or, as I call it, "zombie photography" with arms outstretched while squinting and walking slowly toward the subject. You could always purchase one of those stick-on "loupes" and I have one of these for shooting video with the D800. These work extremely well but seriously compromise what many will see as a prime attraction of this camera - compactness.

and I'm a x-pro1 and x100s shooter. I recently sold all my Nikon gear (D3, D800, pro lenses) and moved to Fuji, so I wound't say that I demanded more from my equipment. If anything, I took a major performance hit. I guess it's not really AF speed or megapixels or write speeds that matter to me, but the photography experience itself.

A digital FM3 from Nikon will never happen. They rather spend more time on Nikon 1 (I guess it makes money) or another coolpix model that will be forgotten right after it's release than concentrate on a camera that's made for photographers.

In my eyes, this A of coolpix, is just another example of how disconnect Nikon is from the experience itself.

While I love the skin tones and portraits of the X100S, the X100S makes faces look plastic and gets rid of wrinkles. The jpegs of the X100S massage a face and skip details, rendering a younger look. Very attractive. But not sharp.

"Movie exposure set before shooting? Yes No " and this is given as a green to the Nikon. Am I missing something or should that be a green to the Ricoh instead?

Otherwise seems a fair review, Nikon appears to have thought they would have this bit of market to themselves and come out with an optimistically-priced and (deliberately?) hamstrung camera, only to get caught out by the Ricoh.

The Nikon allows you to set the aperture before shooting, whereas the Ricoh doesn't give you control over the exposure at all. Some control over exposure is surely better than none at all, don't you agree?

Unless "Movie exposure set before shooting? Yes No ", was read to mean the Nikon must set exposure before the filming starts and the Ricoh does not and this implies it can be set later, during filming.

Marvol asked if he misunderstood so it seems like a fair post on his part, or do you not agree ?

@Tan68The comparison page clearly states that the Ricoh does not allow exposure control during shooting, so there's no implication that it does.But yes, it was a fair post on the OPs part, to which I tried to provide an answer. :-)

A good review. Suggestion for the future -- more Comparison Reviews like this, with two similar cameras, but wait until you can REALLY review them side-by-side. As this stands, it leaves me waiting for your GR review, before I could start figuring out which one to buy!

True. But personally I'd be more interested in detailed comparison against mirrorless - like NEX 5-whatever or one of m4/3 cameras. Cause that's the major target for Coolpix-A - portable camera with large sensor, a market that's mostly occupied by mirrorless, so such comparison would be by far more interesting than the one with GR.

Fair review. I am one the crazy/lucky guys who ended up with both A and GR. always dreamt of an APS GR, but when the A came out I thought that was it, and had no idea the Ricoh was round the corner. So I have learned to use and love the A before splurging for the GR. in retrospect I was all wrong of course, and having both feels silly. All this to say is that, after time with both, I unexpectedly prefer the A. Despite the better ergonomics and UI of the Ricoh. Not sure why I do. It has to do with build and finish I think. The A is very well put together in all aspects. The materials used feel better, and the dials and buttons have great tactile feedback. Better for me than GR. and I just love the output and IQ. Finally, I like the "made in Japan" bit. It is noteworthy in today's age and a good thing for many fundamental reasons....

MIng wrote: "What you choose will come down to your tonal preferences: as it stands, the Ricoh GR (with FW 1.11) makes some of the richest B&W conversions I’ve ever seen from a digital camera, whereas the Nikon Coolpix A has beautifully transparent, accurate color. "

To me, at around $ 1000, color is why I buy this camera. Its not speed, that is DSLR.

"The bigger deal is that, even with the use of the proper updated ACR color profiles, the Ricoh doesn’t handle colors as well as the Nikon IMHO, but creates files that are better than the Nikon for B&W conversions. Ming Thein raised this in his review and I initially doubted it and figured a lot of it was down to the color profile being updated. But the more I work with both cameras, the more I think he was on to something. The Nikon colors are just dead on. The Ricoh colors don’t have anything like the red issues that they had without the ACR profile, but the blues and greens still seem off to me. On some shots I can get them right with a fairly simple WB adjustment, but sometimes I’m left scratching my head and on some back to back landscapes, just couldn’t come close to getting the Ricoh raw files to my liking."

Lots of posts in the Ricoh forum fixing blues & greens with extensive PP, with many tries.

It's all in the PP colour skills and Ming Thein's (or Eric Kim's etc.) aren't up to scratch. Most people who shoot GR aren't in that area of skills, for GR isn't a landscape camera, or a portrait camera, or, a camera for people who know their stuff about colour and are making living from it. What DPR claims in the review is that Nikon apparently gives more pleasing immediate results. But also, the level of tweaking GR files and GR JPEG settings allow are not for the faint hearted. Again, maybe overcomplicated, yes, but still, it requires competence.

Oh, boy. I guess you need a magician's certificate, with triple honors, to make the GR's colors right. Ming Thein is a highly competent professional who is hired by some of the fussiest people on the planet to photograph luxury goods accurately. It my be true that it needs arcane skills to make the GR colors correct, but if it's true it means Ricoh screwed them up monstrously. Which I don't really believe, as the pictures are quite nice from both. It's very easy to see a $300 difference if that's what you're expecting to see.

Thom Hogan, Ming Thein, et al don't write reviews. They are bloggers, they bother not with accuracy, cross testing, careful study, measure, analysis, consulting second opinion, acquiring needed testing equipment, setting up testing environment, triple checking, consulting camera manufacturers, software vendors, etc.They ultimately write subjective reflections in the form of high-tech fictitious narrative based on an abbreviated and hyperbolised experience for our reading pleasure during leisure.Their contribution to the art of photography is that of a tech romance fiction.And that is exactly why we need websites like DPreview — despite their almost proverbial slowness sometimes. However, that has incredible merits, to disperse the accumulated nonsense of the bloggers celebrity famdom, who often sacrifice common sense and thorough testing by substituting them with loads of subjective nonsense — just to be first to "review" a camera after a barely two days of using it.

I have been comparing these two to the RX100. RX100 is smaller and faster. It has a smaller sensor that is about 1 to 1 1/3 stops behind the APS-C unit in the GR and A. But at 28mm equiv is 1 1/3 stops faster lens, which in lots of instances make the difference negligible. The RX100 has a 25% resolution hike, is half the price of the A now. It also has optical stabilisation, does far better video than the other two with proper manual control, has faster AF, faster frame rates... And has a zoom if you need it!

As much as I like the GR (and the A, but it's price makes the GR more attractive), there simply aren't enough advantages for either model to make me want to drop my RX100. New model coming soon too with tilt screen, WiFi and EVF port/hot shoe... Exciting times!

You should do a stand up comedy act dealing with cameras as your subject. You have repeatedly proclaimed that you are a camera collector not a photographer, hence, you don't know inferior color from black & white. And why would you want complicated menus given your lack of photography skills? on the other hand, Nikon A may have the ideal target market in you, point and shooter of static scenes...like a sleeping wife in the dark.

I have them both and the GR is going back. I don't need a camera with gazillion menu settings, crappy metering,flimsy built, fake colors representation, oh and the snap focus thing-it will take one forever to learn how to use it properly.

I understand the GR underdog romance and all, but when it come to IQ the A has the GR beat. Also, I have not missed any "decisive moment wit the A yet.

You shouldn't feel badly or defensive about your choice. I have seen poorly reviewed movies that I like just fine. To that end, I have found some poorly reviewed cameras to be suitable for my needs(particularly if it is a video niggle). The A is an unrefined camera that needs improvements which it will get. The present model will get a discount. Remember the Nikon 1 price plummet, form $1,1199 to $499?

$1000 and you can't change the lens. Why would anyone considering spending that kind of money (or less even) give up that ability? Don't say "pocketability" because an Olympus E-PM2 (has OM-D sensor) with a Panasonic 14mm pancake will kick the c--- out of this Nikon and be able to change lenses, for FAR less money.

Not everyone like the idea of changing lenses, and I believe the image quality of these compacts is very good. Just go to studio comparison and compare coolpix A with om-d at base iso. But yeah I prefer Ricoh GR ;)

The resolution of the OM-D sensor is such that you can run it through one pass of noise control and end up with pretty much the same image up to 3200 ISO as any of the APS sensors. Just compare the OM-D images with various APS sensors in the studio scene. The Pentax implementation has an edge when it comes to noise, the 24mp sensor in the Nikon has a resolution edge, but not by much in either case.

I have Olympus E-PM2 and some micro 4/3 lens. Yes, I seldom change lens. But still before you go out you can pick a lens most likely suitable to that day's need.I am very excited with this Nikon A, until I saw F2.8, for the price, shouldn't it be like F2? Just IMHO. In terms of pocket-ability, I don't see anything thicker than iPhone pocket-able. Just my personal input on this.

Only difference is that Coolpix A is smaller, lighter, and more sturdy - hence makes more sense as a travel or secondary camera.

And if you look at it as " I don't see anything thicker than iPhone " than perhaps you should trash your E-PM2 and get iPhone + DSLR - one for portability, another for image quality. Cause m4/3 isn't really great in either of these categories. It's bigger than compacts and got lower IQ than DSLRs. Heck: it actually got lower IQ than the Coolpix A.

:) Why must I trash E-PM2? i got all 3, iPhone5 and Nikon D7000 updating soon to D600. Also interested to get a Nikon A. Just that F2.8 being bothering me a little. Also IQ is not decided just by the sensor, also by the lens, F2.8? F1.4?:)

It's still ignorant. ILCS are for people who know exactly what they want too. It is just more than one thing. This camera is for people who's top, perhaps only priority is having a camera the fits in their pocket but who still want a large sensor and are willing to give up a large amount of versatility and capability to get it.

I thought the review DPR did with the two photo journalists would have been enough - You know, professionals using a professional tool and all that? (Not calling DPR staff unprofessional in any way shape or form), but that seemed like a pretty smart way to handle those cameras to me.

@ jackspra - If you need DPR to tell you whether the D4 is any good, then you aren't it's target market. Buy an RX1 of M instead.

Didnt say i need dpreview to tell me whether is any good. I said i would have liked to read a test on the d4.I enjoy reading the reviews and have a 1dx what i would like to compare.Its the flagship nikon! No big issues but think a digital website for cameras would want to review the top cameras for the top companys. This tends to get all the smart remarkers going including the site staff.

There is no reason to review D4. It's comfortably outside of the price range of 99.99% of DPReview readers. There are many other more interesting cameras that are still missing reviews. No need to waste resources on D4 review when 99.99% of DPR reader aren't interested in $6000 specialized pro sports camera.

For people worried about the DxoMark score difference between GR and Coolpix A, please do yourself a favor and look at the SNR and dynamic range graphs and you will see that the differences are pretty much non-existent. As for 12-bit vs 14-bit RAW, the advantage of 14-bit RAW is that theoretically you could capture more DR with it. However as above comparison would show you GR manages to achieve very high DR even with 12-bit so it doesn't matter that it doesn't have 14-bit raw. If anything it is actually better that we get the same DR with a smaller file size. It would also be interesting to throw in the Sony 5N in the DxoMark comparison - another camera with the 16MP Sony sensor. 5N shows a clear drop in DR compared to both GR and Coolpix A and puts in perspective the negligible difference between these two. Now from personal experience 5N already has excellent DR and shadow recovery, so I could imagine that these two cameras could only be even more excellent.

All things being equal, I don't know one photographer who would prefer have his camera limited to 12-bit RAW.

Re DxOMark, the Pentax K5 gets over 14 EV DR, while the K-30, which only offers 12-bit DNG, is limited to 13 EV DR. The K-30 is a great camera, but it's not able to compete with the K-5 for the high DR.

Most Nikons, even on the low-end like the D5100, offer 14-bit uncompressed RAW. For a high end enthusiast like the GR to be limited to 12-bit RAW is kind of puzzling. And rather than point out the obvious advantage that the Coolpix A offers in this area, the reviewer tries to minimize this point with a unsupported claim that "most photographers don't need 14-bit uncompressed RAW unless they are doing a lot of post work", to paraphrase.

Don't most photographers at this level shoot RAW and do a fair amount of post processing work? Or are we supposed to believe this is a snap-shot camera?

Ah marike6 - at it again. Yes yes compare the K-5 to the K-30 - it is SO apt here. Oh wait, it isn't using the same benchmark you cite to claim an advantage for 14bit RAW over 12bit shows no advantage between these two cameras. Want to stop talking nonsense now?

@marike6 - I'll add some Raw files to the Nikon review later today and make sure I post the matching Raws from the Ricoh when we publish that review. That way you, and everyone else, can try playing with the files to find out how much of a difference 12 vs 14-bit makes for them.

Saying there is no interest in reviews and people are tired of them makes no sense. Top of line canon and nikon seems to me would be of interest to a LOT of people.Dont forget a we have been using these cameras for decades. The 1dx was reviewed so why not d4. Makes no sense to me.

I hate to admit this, but i think your reviews are largely irrelevant now. You can't keep up with volume of cameras and reviews simply matter less. People are quite fed up with reviews and buy what they want and ignore opinions.

Simon, you couldn't even be bothered to post samples from the Canon 1D X. Why? You can't afford to rent one for a few weeks? This is supposed to be Digital Photography review. Both the D4 and the 1D X should have been reviewed as these are flagship, state of the art DSLRs and important to the camera industry. Before you say a word, ask yourself why do Road and Track or Car and Driver review the Corvette ZR1 or Ford GT500?

Agreed with marike 6: I'm using a D800 and when I take a look at the coolpix A gallery original files I' m impressed by the sharp images, color balance and rendering. Really impressive. It reminds me my nikon 35 Ti film camera, sharp as a samurai blade!

I'll buy the Ricoh, but the Nikon doesn't seem to have any special appeal... It's a decent camera, but nothing special. The Ricoh is driven by incredibly photographer friendly software, and in that lies it's special appeal.

I've been a Ricoh user since the GRD III and it's all about the grip and the interface. Those two things make the GRD a pleasure to shoot with.

That said, the Coolpix A actually has a better sensor (the legendary Sony 16 mp Exmor), far better high ISO ability, 14-bit RAW, and a dedicated manual focus ring. Of course you wouldn't know any of that from the above review which seemed to gloss over the positive stuff for the Nikon to talk up the GR.

"While Ricoh, which owns Pentax, says the sensor is not the same highly-rated Sony sensor that is in the Pentax KII DSLR and several other cameras, my informal image quality tests show it is in the same league."

@ marike6 - with respect, it's very rare for a manufacturer to say 'these two sensors are the same.'

The lack of AA filter or a difference in colour filter array is enough for a product manager to say 'this is totally new.' Given Nikon's talk of optimised microlenses on the A's sensor, I wouldn't rule that out as the difference.

I don't know the margin of error in DxO's testing, but there's nothing in their results that makes me believe there's a big difference between the two sensors.

I was hoping it the GR would have the Sony Exmor as well, but based on the Adorama article and the DxOMark test, I'd think it's a fair assumption that the GR sensor is similar to the sensor in the GXR.

Perhaps because no manufacturer wants to reinforce the idea that a products' qualities aren't its own doing. Or to avoid supporting the (false) idea that a camera's quality comes solely down to its sensor.

Look at the Sony NEX F3, 5N and 5R results. Certainly 16MP Exmor sensors, ISO scores ranging from 910 to 1114. Could that be the 5R's hybrid AF denting the performance? Maybe, but it still shows that some variance is not unusual, even in closely-related sensors.

I really don't see anything on DxO or that Adorama quote that changes my belief that both cameras use very similar sensors, plausibly two variants of Exmor.

Look at the pixel counts and video/CDAF performance of the GXR series, vs the availability of Sony 12 and 16MP sensors and I'm not sure that you can move from Exmor to GXR.

Marike6 - I'm also a long time Ricoh user who's had a chance to shoot pretty extensively with both of these. And I personally find plenty to like about the Nikon, some things more than the Ricoh. I, too, really like the focus ring, I like the auto-ISO implementation better, and blasphemous as it might be, I even prefer the less complex but still flexible interface. But I really don't know where you get "far better high ISO ability"? DXO shows a marginal difference of about a third of a stop IIRC, and I could never see a difference in actual low light shooting. They're both excellent, and as equally so as my eye could determine. Measurably better, maybe. But far better? I don't think so.

The Coolpix A does have special appeal for Nikon DSLR owners because their Nikon flash units will work with it, but not so with the Ricoh. That's reason enough for Nikon owners to skip the off-brand cameras like Ricoh. It's just the way it is.

@ Marike6 - Of course you would say that about the Nikon, you are the worlds biggest Nikon zealot! Let's clear a few things up here:

Nikon doesn't name Sony either as the sensor manufacturer. Neither did Olympus or Panasonic - But we know better don't we?

Ricoh and Pentax both use Sony sensors in other models, such as the K5 series, GXR series, K-r, K-x and previous GRs - But you want us to believe that THIS sensor, that directly competes with your beloved Nikon but $400 cheaper, couldn't possibly be using the same Sony sourced sensor?

@ marike6 - The colour profile of the GR is embedded in the DNG files (something most Raw files don't have). The latest version of ACR has an Adobe profile for the Ricoh and the colour (and noise) response between it and the Nikon are essentially identical.

@ Everyone - can we please not make this personal. Disagreeing is fine, personal criticism isn't.

The X100s knocks both the Nikon and the Ricoh out of the ring just with it's beautiful and extremely useful viewfinder. Slightly better high ISO doesn't matter much unless you're shooting indoors most of the time. Who are these people who shoot at high ISO so much of the time? Lol! Silly nonsense.

DPR writes: "its thunder is stolen by the Ricoh GR - a camera that achieves the unusual trick of being a touch better in almost every respect while also being significantly cheaper."

The GR is not better in:* high ISO ability* it doesn't have better DR* it doesn't have a better sensor* no 14-bit RAW* no manual focus ring* reds are not very good on the GR

DxOMark tested both cameras and the GR doesn't even break 1000 in their low-light ISO test (972 ISO vs 1164 ISO for the A).

Come on DPR, we get that you guys are enamored with the GR, but the bit about the GR being better in every way simply not true.

And writing such a quick review where almost every aspect of the A is a direct comparison to the GR actually does a disservice to your readers. Maybe you should have written no Coolpix A review and a GR / Coolpix A comparison. But the above review is kind of joyless review which is kind of odd as the DPR Coolpix A gallery is about the nicest you guys have done.

DxO's statement about the Low Light score you quote:
'A difference in low-light ISO of 25% represents 1/3 EV and is only slightly noticeable.' So, the 19% difference you're quoting will be less than 1/3EV difference.

The difference between 14-bit Raw and 12-bit is rather hard to actually demonstrate - its benefit, in most situations, is academic.

The Ricoh doesn't have a manual focus ring but it has better focus aids and a snap focus feature to focus at preset distances which, with an 18mm F2.8 lens, is enough precision for real-world uses.

Yes, the Nikon's JPEG colours are slightly nicer. I've said so in the review. Its Active D-Lighting is also more sophisticated than the Ricoh's DR expansion system.

This was no quick review - it was a significant chunk of the past two months shooting the two cameras, trying to find and illustrate the differences.

Next, you'll be arguing the Ricoh isn't actually cheaper. They both produce very similar, high quality relative to their size. If someone has to have a Nikon, fine, but I'm not impressed by DxO scores and statistics like 974 ISO vs. 1164 ISO. I get different credit scores but I'm really the same.

According the DxOMark, 12-bit DNG on the K-30 vs 14-bit PEF of the K-5 cost it about 1 EV DR. But instead you did the usual DPR move of speaking for photographers saying "unless you are into heavy post work" kind of caveat.

But I didn't expect any outcome as I've actually pre-ordered the GRD, as I've been a GRD user for years. I just found it odd that you made one of the nicest DPR galleries ever with your Coolpix A images, and you wrote such a joyless review. Even positives like the manual focus ring, better moire control vs the GR, bitingly sharp images, great Sony Exmor sensor with nearly 14 EV DR and wonderful colors were not discussed. So no offense, I appreciate the work you've done, but I just thought you didn't review the Coolpix A on it's merits, but wrote a more subjective comparison piece.

DxOMark may have said that about the Pentaxs but they aren't saying that here.

The difference in their low light score is less than 1/3EV, the difference in the overall score is 2 points - they say 5 points is equal to 1/3EV. The difference in their DR score is 1/3EV. There isn't a 1EV difference between these two cameras.

I'm flattered that you liked the Coolpix A gallery, since I shot most of it. The Nikon's JPEG colour played a bit role in that.

Don't get me wrong, the Nikon's a nice camera - a Silver Award is meant to denote that it's really good. However, the two cameras are too similar for me to ignore the Ricoh.

No offense, much appreciate your review. But there is quite honestly a disconnect in your above statement about "GR is a bit better in every way" and the two DPR Sample Galleries from each camera. The Coolpix A gallery you made is absolutely beautiful: colorful, sharp, highly detailed images, while the GR's does not impress much at all.

Just reading your review and the lack of enthusiasm for the camera (and conversely your high enthusiasm for all things GR) seems odd considering the nice gallery you shot with it, that's all. Don't take it the wrong way.

Of course he is. Marike6 always claims to shoot lots of different cameras or formats, but somehow, in every word that is written about a product, regardless of brand, Marike6 has something to say about how great Nikon is. He is an unadulterated tool amd every single DPR post/review/preview is filled with his shilling nonsense. He cannot leave one thing alone, ever. Reading about the new Canon 11-22 for EOS-M? Time to read about Marike6's take on why the Nikon 1 is better.

If we can all ignore the dullard goon, he might take his meaty face elsewhere.

@ Marike6 - If you don't like DPRs reviews, go elsewhere! We would ALL appreciate it very much. Go write your own little 'I heart Nikon' rubbish somewhere else, then you can comment on that about how you are SO right. There is ZERO point in trying to 'correct' someone else's assessment, either you trust and appreciate DPRs staff's assessment or find another site you like better.

My eyes are telling me the same thing. Even at base ISO the Fuji raw images aren't as sharp as either of these two. And at higher ISO levels that continues. Don't know why. The Fuji seems like a very capable camera, but these are just a little bit nicer. I'll take the Ricoh, as it seems just a hair better at almost everything, for significantly less. Though the prices on all of these are too high. For the price of the Nikon I could buy a good dslr and lens or a very good mirrorless system. This might have better IQ at 28mm than they would, and fit in a jacket pocket, but so does a NEX-6, and it gives me an evf and a lot more versatility.

Got to agree, Fuji cook their X-Trans RAWs like Pentax do. The X100 looks nicer to me. Though X-Trans does do a really good job of built in NR at high high ISOs, kinda makes a mess of them at lower ISOs.

More about gear in this article

Nikon has issued a firmware update for the Coolpix A. Version 1.11 decreases minimum focus distance (in normal focus mode) and boasts improvements to autofocus acquisition. Other improvements are minor, including better battery performance during interval shooting. Get the update

2013 saw the release of five cameras in a (relatively) new class, which we're calling 'fixed lens compact cameras'. Specifically, large-sensor fixed-lens compact cameras. Fujifilm's X100S is one of our favorite cameras of the year, addressing many of the faults of its predecessor. Sony followed up on the RX1 from last year with the RX1R, which shares the same 24MP full-frame sensor but minus an AA filter for superior resolution. Meanwhile, both Nikon and Ricoh released APS-C 28mm equivalent cameras, while Sigma's DP3 offers a 75mm equivalent lens. Click through for a chance to cast your vote and decide which is best.

We've just updated our preview of the Nikon Coolpix A with a full set of studio shots, showing image quality in both JPEG and RAW capture modes. This is in addition to a gallery of real-world samples, and first impressions of our initial findings from shooting with the camera both in and out of the studio. The Nikon Coolpix A features a 16MP CMOS sensor, and a fixed, 28mm equivalent F2.8 lens. Click through for a link to our preview, which now includes our studio comparison pages.

We've just posted a selection of real-world samples shot with the Nikon Coolpix A. The Coolpix A offers a 16MP APS-C sensor in a genuinely compact body, mated to a 28mm equivalent F2.8 retractable lens. We've put together a 21-image gallery of images shot in a variety of situations and at a range of apertures. Click through to see how it performed.

Nikon has posted a gallery of ten images and a video of the new Coolpix A DX-format compact camera. The camera features a 16MP APS-C sensor with no optical low-pass filter and a 28mm equivalent F2.8 prime lens. The images that Nikon has posted are taken by documentary photographer Doug Menuez in JPEG Fine (8-bit) mode. Click through for some images and a link to the full gallery.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

The Edelkrone DollyONE is an app-controlled, motorized flat surface camera dolly. The FlexTILT Head 2 is a lightweight head that extends, tilts and pans. They aren't cheap, but when combined these two products provide easy camera mounting, re-positioning and movement either for video work or time lapse photography.

Are you searching for the best image quality in the smallest package? Well, the GR III has a modern 24MP APS-C sensor paired with an incredibly sharp lens and fits into a shirt pocket. But it's not without its caveats, so read our full review to get the low-down on Ricoh's powerful new compact.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1X is the ultimate sports, action and wildlife camera for professional Micro Four Thirds users. However, it can't quite match the level of AF reliability offered by its full frame competitors.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

We've updated our waterproof camera buying guide with the latest round of rugged compacts, and we've crowned a new winner as the best pick in the category: the Olympus TG-6. That is, unless you happen to find a good deal on the TG-5.

Researchers with the Samsung AI Center in Moscow and the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology have created a system that transforms still images into talking portraits with as little as a single image.

K&R Photographics, a camera store in Crescent Springs, Kentucky, was robbed by armed men, who not only took thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment, but also injured the 70-year-old co-owner of the store.

The new Fujifilm GFX 100 boasts some impressive specifications, including 100MP, in-body stabilization and 4K video. But what's it like to shoot with? Senior Editor Barnaby Britton found out on a recent trip to Florence, Italy.

It's here! The long-awaited next-generation Fujifilm GFX has been officially launched. Click through to learn more about the camera that Fujifilm is hoping will shake up the pro photography market - the GFX100.

We've known about the Fujifilm GFX 100 since last fall, but now it's official: this 102MP medium-format monster will be available at the end of June for $10,000. In addition to its incredible resolution, the camera also has in-body IS, a hybrid AF system, 4K video and a removable EVF.

According to DJI, any drone model weighing over 250 grams will have AirSense Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) receivers installed to help drone operators know when planes and helicopters are nearby.

Chris and Jordan are kicking off a new segment in which they make feature suggestions to manufacturers for the benefit of all photographer-kind. To start things off, they take a look at the humble USB-C port and everything it could be doing for us.

The Olympus TG-5 is one of our favorite waterproof cameras, and the company today introduced the TG-6, a relatively low-key update. New features include the addition of an anti-reflective coating on the sensor, a higher-res LCD, and more underwater and macro modes.

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

We've been playing around with a prototype of the new Peak Design Travel Tripod and are impressed so far: it's incredibly compact, fast to deploy and stable enough for the heaviest bodies. However, the price may turn some away.